munication. >> i saw another hand go up in that general area. yes? if you could be sure to ask a question straight off, that would be great. >> so i remember a couple of years ago the food stamp processing went down for a whole bunch of states and i'm wondering, seemed like a practical question here, is that the food stamp system as secure as the commercial credit card system? or do we even know? is anyone checking? >> the credit card system in the united states is based on things that you can trivially photograph with your mobile phone in a restaurant. and i can't speak as to the technical security of the food stamp system but my understanding is that the credit card system in the united states is backed by the legal framework around the --

around fraudulent -- fraudulent draws, not around the technology of the use of the credit card itself. >> i was going to add, we talked about security and confidentiality. we didn't mention the availability part. people talk about the triad that comes up a lot and this is a case of availability, people are dependent on a system in order to eat and this is not having that secured against an attack is a place where the security failed a group of very vulnerable people and again, nothing to do with confidentiality but availability, we have to think about that, as well. >> one of the sayings in communities that are focused on economic justice or community development is that systems for the poor are poor systems. and hopefully we'll see that changing in the future. i saw a hand go up here. yes, this gentleman in the green.

>> my question is about the -- like the topography or the geography of how the digital world actually appears. just thinking about the weather these days and about that weather doesn't follow along county lines and the internet obviously doesn't fit necessarily in national borders so how should we look at the internet and how we connect to it and how we interact with it, perhaps just markers with which we change our behavior, when we get online, when we use our phones and things, what are some things to understand based upon how you would describe what the internet is actually -- how it's actually designed and then how we should interact with it. >> can you be more specific? how we should interact with the internet is a big question. >> well, ok. to be on the more technical -- >> but also brief. >> i guess on the more

technical side. i've used servers to watch bbc internet videos that i can't see because i'm in the u.s. but my digital identity can be copied and i can fake it. so how do we -- i guess that's what i'm more curious about. if this can be done all over the world and i can appear anywhere in the world instantaneously, how do we -- if we don't understand it as well -- go about protecting ourselves or interacting. just things to keep in mind. >> we'll come back to that. >> great panel.

>> i'm learning what you guys make of the trend of providers charging for the privilege of not to be tracked. at&t, enrolling in its gigabit service, will allow you to opt out of super cookie tracking for $29 a month although the answer is fairly obvious. what do you think this means for low-income users for privacy and security and do you see this to be a growing trend? >> it's clearly a growing trend and it's not just at&t doing this. another situation with a similar consequence is the facebook zero style plans. for folks unaware of how this works. facebook zero is when facebook toss your mobile provider, we'll cover the connectivity costs as long as you're talking to facebook so what if you

could get your mobile phone plan and your mobile phone plan was free as long as the only parties you were talking to was facebook so facebook becomes your mobile phone and that's your network and they're sitting at a central point for data collection and surveillance. the answer to your question, maybe it's a leading question, but the answer is that for communities without funds, that is the only way that they're the answer to your question, maybe it's a leading question, but the answer is that for communities without funds, that is the only way that they're going to get initial access. and the long-term view of that is that actual access, what we currently think of as the internet to the, like, whole world, could become the domain of just the people with the ability to pay for it and i think that's a tragic outcome if that continues in that direction. >> we have time for one or two more questions. i see this gentleman here. >> my question has to do with existing infrastructure already in place affecting everyday cybersecurity issues for everyday people.

what would the proliferation of the use of the tour browser have to do with security issues affecting everyday people? do you think that's a good solution? thank you. >> i would love to see more people using the tour browser. i don't think it's a solution to all the problems we face. the tour browser provides a specific set of bounded anonymity preservation but it would be great to see more people using it. again it doesn't solve all the problems. i was happy to see facebook open a tour hidden service, not

because i have a particular stake in facebook. i don't actually use it but i am happy to see that that's there because it points out that the use of tour is a fundamental -- it's an activity that many people would want to do simply because they're blocked from the network services that they want, whether that's by their government or by their employer or by their -- by their home internet provider. so -- >> so i want to end with a question that will hopefully get us thinking through the connection between this conversation and the rest of the conversations that we'll have throughout the day. so throughout the day, we'll

have -- we'll see this concept of cybersecurity in all of its permutations and i get the sense that the conversations and some of the ideas that we have been talking about in terms of accessibility availability, now affordability, protocols and standards setting -- what do you hope of these issues that we've been talking about this morning and this session travel or intersect with some of the conversations that are happening later today? >> maybe i can follow up on two questions. the anonymity question. i think there are a lot of times in what we call real life or the flesh world where we rely on anonymity and the digital world, the way it is designed right now, makes it very difficult to enact these things in the real world

anonymously. crisis lines have been an example. and i think it's very important that we think that the digital and real world are enmeshed that we have to make sure that certain basic cultural and societal practices like anonymous speech or anonymous access to services also remain available in this new enmeshed environment. i'm not saying online. this new environment. and the gentleman who was talking about afghanistan and syria, those are some of the most surveilled countries not only by the u.s. but by virtue of making that available, we're enabling parties in those countries to surveille on their own populations. in the case of syria, they have massive amounts of deep pocket software from companies in the west and they've been using

that to surveille their population which is endangers any of the populations of minorities or disenfranchised people living in those societies so while we can always look at the security and privacy of the tools that we develop, they are only as secure and as private in the general environment in which they exist and if we go for an environment based on surveillance because we think that's a good strategy, we're endangering the existence of these tools and therefore anonymity and privacy in this new enmeshed world. >> so let's think of things as an interacting system. >> that is correct. >> i want a word or two from tara and daniel. >> it's hard to add on to what seda said. i liked the discussion of the virtual world and physical world. we spend so much time in the digital, we tend to forget that we have broader communities and social systems that we interact with so i would like to hear more discussion about our larger social and interpersonal systems in our continuing discussions throughout the day and beyond. >> quickly, daniel? >> to add to what they said, i

just wanted to reinforce the idea that as policy proposals are made, they often have technological components and if you ask for a policy proposal that allows the kind of deep surveillance that we have been sort of warning about here that surveillance is not just going to ultimately be used by the parties that you think will have access to it and i think we just want -- i just want to make sure that proposals like that are understood in the risks they pose to the network as a whole and everyone involved in it. >> great, thank you. please join me in thanking our panel. [applause] >> before i announce our next speaker, i wanted to let people in the back who might not have seats know we have plenty of seats in front so please feel free to move up here, especially here to your left, to my right right here. our next speaker is dr. heather ross and i'm particularly pleased to welcome her here today. dr. ross is a visiting speaker from the university of denver

and she will talk about new and old ethics and what immanuel kant can teach us. >> thank you for inviting me. i am a weird individual for an academic. i'm trained as a political scientist but i do law and ethics and political philosophy so i like to merge these together to think about new technologist so today my job is to tell you how we can look back 200 years to somebody who can help us find information to

help us in the future. so this is how political scientists think about war. this is a bargaining model and what it assumes is two rational actors making rational decisions and this is literally how political scientists think about war but this is how -- and this is how they think about cyber war but this isn't how it works. we don't really face off in cyberspace with our adversaries. we don't look them square in the face like this. for those of you who don't know, this is gigi ping. we don't square off in the face. we don't even do good battles, like fun battles in cyberspace. we hit below the belt, we do it just enough to be irritating but not enough to trigger what we consider an act of war, right? and this is really telling so

how do we figure out when all of these below the belt issues are coming out. it would be really nice if we had something like a dark mark from harry potter that told us that when our networks were insecure, that we were owned that all of our data would pop up on the screen, right, "you're owned, the dark lord is coming" but we don't have any of this stuff and it's hard to enforce our rights claims in cyberspace. this is where i think immanuel kant comes to the rescue. i think when we think about cyberspace and think about rights claims and enforcing our claims of justice and making sure that we can -- the state can protect us or protect our data or different types of

things, right, kant tells us a couple of things. one, he says that the state needs to have the monopoly on coercive force in order to protect our rights. and to do this, right, you have jurisdictions, you have borders, you have laws, everything's great. in cyberspace, we don't have the monopoly on coercive force and jurisdiction is a problem and he says when that's a problem, you fight with other states and that's how you prosecute your rights when you don't have the jurisdictional claims that you need. ok, you go to your army, you go to your navy. they help you enforce your rights but this is a problem in this completely insecure and it's not a good bet so he says

then you need to create a free federation of states for a defensive community much like nato, right. so we have nato, i call this social contract nato style, if you know any of the people in the back that i sort of shot faces in, kudos to you and if you can point out who hobbs is you know where he's sitting, more kudos to you. what i really think is happening here is that we need our friends. we need our allies, we need to get together and have cooperation, right? that's what we learned from kant. we need trust. we need allies to trust. but when this happens, when we have these defensive communities and we have allies and we have trust, we can't do certain things, he says. in fact, we can't spy on our allies and he makes a really, really big claim about not involve what he calls dishonorable stratagems and to be involved in spying is to be engaging in a dishonorable stratagem so we know all these reports that come out over and over again about spying and different types of things breaking down trust, right? we have all of the different leaders of states saying that they are breaking bonds of

trust necessary for allies and this is huge, right, when we think about cybersecurity because the claims of justice that we want to enforce, our rights that we want to protect require our allies and it requires we trust our allies but now we're kind of not doing so who the that, right? in fact, google's executive chairman eric schmidt famously said we're going to break the internet if we keep doing what we're doing, right? so we have to bring it back down to building trust. we can't be what kant would call an unjust enemy, that is, someone who is engaging in dishonorable stratagems and threatening the fragile bonds between allies and peace so to

be an unjust enemy, to square off, to fight against another unjust enemy, is ultimately to go back to a state of war, right, what he would call a state of war. and this is huge, right, because all of the international agreements we have, all of the international wall we have all the cooperation that we have so we don't involve ourselves in interstate war is based on very basic rules of trust but if we keep breaking those bonds of trust, we will undo the great thing that we've created, this great thing, the internet, that has given us communication, shopping. he was a big fan of shopping and commerce. he thought it would create bonds of trust. he said if you go visit somebody else's shores, you'll learn about their culture so we need to continue to engage in the sharing of ideas and commerce and we have to stop, i think he would say, we have to stop thinking about short-term goals of militarizing cyberspace, spying on our

enemies and breaking down the very basic relationships we have to enforce our rights claims. >> he defended president obama's security and it's 35 minutes. >> thanks, tim. i have the honor and privilege of introducing our next speaker, john carlin, who's the assistant attorney general for national security.

he runs the national security division which is about 350 federal employees who basically are responsible for prosecuting cases of terrorism, espionage, cyber issues and national security in general. previously he was chief of staff and senior council to f.b.i. director robert mueller. he's a graduate of harvard law schoo, and i'm going to engage him in conversation and then open it up to you. so, john, what is the role of the national security division when it comes to cyber? >> thanks, peter. the national security division is the first new litigating division in the department of justice in 50 years. and relatively new. we were founded in 2006. it was one of the reforms from post-9/11, and the recommendation was relatively simple. prior to its existence at the department of justice, spy cases, terrorism cases, applications for intelligence before the foreign intelligence surveillance court, and cyber

cases, all reported through different chains at the department of justice. so the idea was to set up a one-stop shop at the department of justice that would have the sole responsibility for the national security portfolio and thus be a bridge to the intelligence community and law enforcement. and in particular, one of the founding reasons for our creation was to tear down the wall that had existed prior to 9/11 both legally and culturally between law enforcement and national security. and based on the fact that we were formed in response to 9/11 and terrorism events, in the beginning we were really focused on the terrorism portfolio. but with time it became clear that the national security cyber threat was growing, both a threat that's here in terms of the theft of economic information by nation state actors and growing intelligence and the growing threat of the future which would be to use a cyber attack for destructive

means. starting in 2012, we really started to apply the lessons we learned from terrorism to cyberspace and that meant engaging and developing in every u.s. attorney's office across the country, from the 93, 94 offices, specially trained officers trained to handle the electronic evidence in cyber cases and on the other hand how to handle classified sources and methods and to learn the patterns and practices and the intelligence about terrorist groups and nation states. that network is called the national security cyber specialist network and we administer is through the national security division and as part of it we make sure we have our criminal colleagues because at the beginning of a cyber case, it can be difficult to determine who the actor is. that approach and change in 2012, i think, simultaneously, the f.b.i. put out an edict to the field that said we're going

to start sharing what we're formally on the intelligence side of our house with these new specially trained prosecutors just like we did in terrorism cases and we're going to use this new approach to make sure we're bringing all tools to the fight against those who would harm our nation through cyber enabled means. it was a direct result of that approach that led to first ever indictment of state actors in the case against the five p.l.a. officers in the spring of last year. i think last year was a significant sea change where you saw the results of this new approach and i think it also led to the ability to very very quickly have attribution in the case of the sony hack which we were able to do, from the beginning treat as a national security matter. >> you mentioned the case, the cases against the five people's liberation army officers that you pursued. do you think that's going to be an effective approach with china? to what extent is it possible these guys would get inside an american courtroom?

>> i think it was a necessary change in approach. we got really, really good as a community when i was over working for director mueller, the f.b.i. and the rest of the intelligence community, vastly improved their game at being able to watch what our nation state adversaries were doing to our system and see the amount of information exfiltrated daily from our private systems but with that increased ability to watch came an increased obligation to act. we can't just watch this data going out. we need to do something. part of that approach, i think just like in the terrorism arena, and we use this phrase often in terrorism cases, is the all tools approach. meaning we got to look at the threat actor, what are they doing? in this case, they're stealing from american companies for the economic benefit of their companies. how can we increase the costs using every lever of american

power so at the end of the day they say it's not worth this approach, we're going to stop stealing day in and day out what american ingenuity is producing, instead we're going to compete fairly. in order to do that, that means we effectively decriminalized it because we weren't before looking to make these cases. that means applying the resources to look and if the facts and the evidence lead to a criminal group in the u.s., if they lead to a criminal group in europe or if they happen to lead to nation state actors in china, we're going to follow it and bring charges where appropriate but it also means looking as you saw in the

sony case, can we do sanctions through the treasury department, can you designate certain entities based on their conduct through the commerce department, can you use the levers of diplomatic power through the state department? so looking across the spectrum of u.s. levers of power and then gradually increasing the costs to make it clear there are consequences and when it comes to these cyber events, number one, i think for too long people assumed that you can be anonymous. we can find out who you are and who did it and number two, there will be consequences. >> quick attribution on the sony hack. do you expect indictments to come? >> i'll just say this, that we -- we continue to investigate it as a criminal case and i think with each one of these national security related intrusions we're going to be looking to do as we did in p.l.a. and see what are the tools we can bring to the table would be a criminal charge. >> these five chinese p.l.a. officers, if they left china, would they be arrested by interpol or some other entity? >> i won't talk specifically about what we do but i'd say it's a charged criminal case and we very much hope to bring them to a united states courtroom where they'll be

accorded all due process under the law and tried as we have other individuals. >> are they subject to a red notice? or whatever interpol, these kinds of entities? >> i'm not going to discuss the specifics of how we might try to bring them to a u.s. courtroom although we have asked the chinese government to provide them. backing up a little bit on this approach, in the beginning when we were doing our non-proliferation approach so one of the tools we brought to prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction was the prosecution. in the beginning, i think some in china and others thought this was a proxy for a trade war with them, that we weren't serious about the proliferation problem but using it for economic reasons. over time, they realized, no we really want to stop the weapons of mass destruction

from getting into the hands of terrorists in rogue states and have realized that's why we're using the criminal tool in that arena and we've had countless cases of individuals arrested overseas, extradited and brought to face justice in the united states courtroom for export, control and proliferation cases and similarly with narcotics kingpins in the beginning folks asked why would you bring a criminal charge against someone protected by their own country because they're the heads of cartels but over time we've brought heads of cartels and they're sitting in u.s. jails. it's an approach used in other threats. it will not solve the problem, the criminal justice system will not solve the nation state national security problem but it needs to be a tool in our arsenal. >> would you consider criminal charges against people who are kind of proliferating isis social media sites or involved

in isis's social media production? >> yes. i think you've seen, you need to look at the particular facts in evidence but -- and that brings up a broader point. the use of the material support statute, so this should be when there's a designated terrorist group and you're providing your services to that terrorist group either by providing them actual material, money, technical expertise or yourself, that these are cases we have and will charge under our criminal justice system and that approach, i think you is a

you in 2012, about 27 countries were part of the global countering terrorist forum and produced the memorandum of best practices, what type of legal codes should be on the books to enable you to bring criminal charges before someone commits a terrorist act and what i think you've seen since then is the adoption by nearly over 20 countries of new criminal codes to address this type of conduct. some modeled after our material support approach, and you saw this fall, unprecedented unanimous approach at the united nations both through the security council and that same global counterterrorism forum group, talked specifically about the problem of foreign terrorist fighters.

international, there are over 90 countries that have contributed foreign terrorist fighters to the syria-iraq reason and part of the approach to stopping that problem similar to the all-tools approach, would be making sure that nations have on their books, now they're required to have on their books, statutes so they can take criminal action to prevent citizens from their country from joining that fight before they become the terrorists. >> isis is using social media to recruit but it's a huge advantage for people in the justice department because they can legally monitor twitter and facebook and we've had quite a lot of cases in this country of americans who have tried to

join isis have been stopped at the airport. to what extent is social media a good thing or bad thing for you? >> so pulling it even further back. social media is here and it's been an enormous boon to the american economy. it's a change in technology that has many advantages to the world and can be used for many positive expressive intent. it is also a -- presents a new challenge to those who want to combat the terrorism threat. it's essentially a free form of communication that you can use to plot and plan. this is something that people would invest billions of dollars to come up with a communication system this fast and sometimes this secure for their armies. now we provide it essentially for free.

it's a new way to propagandize and reach individuals in a very targeted fashion in their home. the ability to produce slick propaganda is cheap and widely available so it presents a new threat. there are some intelligence collection communications that we value, now we store in cyberspace so we need to worry about it being stolen or destroyed in that space. social media for the purposes of propaganda or communicating. i think in both instances, these are areas where we really need public-private sector cooperation, particularly when we talk about our critical infrastructure. it's pretty much all in state or private hands. and so in order to effectively defend the american people from threat, we need to work with companies so they improve their

defenses, but we also need to work at ways in which they can effectively share information to the government so we can coordinate and put out threats cut across sectors. and also we need to be able to share information that we have collected as a government to them to best enable them to protect themselves. i think we've made enormous strides in this area but given the scope of the threat as the 9/11 commission report put it out earlier this summer, in some respects, with a pre-9/11 moment, given the threats we can see coming to the cyber infrastructure, so although we've made progress we still need to do more and faster to meet this threat. >> when you say we're in a pre-9/11 moment, what do you mean? >> i think in some respect the terrorists groups have the intent to cause the maximum amount of harm than they can against our critical infrastructure and they define it broadly. against things that people associate with the west or with

america and would cause damage here. so back in 2012, you had zawahiri, formally publicly call upon jihadists to take these types of attacks and since then you've had numerous groups issue similar calls. so we know what they want to do. we've seen their pattern and practice in the past of these terrorist groups announcing what it is they want to do and then doing it, attempting to do it. that means, as a country, before that devastating attack occurs, we need to put the attention, resources, statutory changes into place so hopefully we never reach the moment where that catastrophic attack has occurred and then we're suddenly putting in a variety of new procedures. >> on 9/11, al qaeda had both the intent and the capability. cyber terrorism so far has been in the area of cyber nuisance rather than national security problem.

>> so, i'd -- i think it's -- characterize it a couple of different ways. one, i don't think they have the capability to do the type of destructive attack they've talked about or they would have done it because they have the intent and there's really no barrier to entry. you have seen destructive cyber attacks. you saw the attack against saudi alamco where they essentially turned an oil company's computers into bricks. you saw the sony attack which wasn't done for economic advantage or intelligence gains, it was done to destroy and coerce. and the damage that nation states in particular are doing by stealing our economic information day in, day out, not for strategic purposes but to use it in direct competition with our companies is real. i agree that we haven't seen the kind of sophisticated nation state capability make

its way into the hands of a terrorist group but that's a matter of time and when you look at the criminal groups, using an example, criminal case that was taken down last spring, game over zeus. it was a botnet that was composed of thousands and thousands of computers. botnet is just a term for essentially an internet of compromised computers so they've gotten into people's computers and they use a vulnerability to take control of your computer and use it for their purposes. and that can be used to launch attacks like a denial of service attack but it can also be used as it was by this criminal group, they used a code called cryptolocker and they would encrypt people's computers and they were doing it for profit so they would blackmail you and say if you want to see your data again and for all of you in your different fields, i'm sure there's much you value in your computer, that you need to pay us money. if a terrorist groups gets access to that type of botnet, they could use it to block people's access to health information or keep people out of the financial sector and they're not going to offer payment to set it loose,

they're just going to cause the massive amount of destruction that they can so it doesn't take too much imagination and some of those botnets are for rent so even without having the in-house capability as a terrorist group, you can see how over the horizon this is a capability they're going to develop. >> what about states that also are quasi criminal enterprises like north korea or terrorists groups which are proxies for states like hezbollah. >> i think we need to look at the particularly sophisticated nation states like russia and china and see what we can do to deter their particularly a lot and pay particular attention to the north koreas and the irans who might launch destructive attacks and part of that approach is proving it's not cost-free because we can do attribution and prove who you are behind that keyboard which is why the p.l.a. case was important and why the attribution of north korea was important and we also need to show that after we do that we're not afraid to publicly say what we've found so you won't be hiding in the world stage and third that there will

be consequences for that type of activity but it's a threat that i'm very concerned about. >> one final question before throwing it open to the audience, what is the international legal framework that exists or should exist that would prevent, that would sort of be employed for future -- is there enough international law to prevent this going forward, at least make it harder for states like iran and others to do a saudi iramco attack? >> i think we need to continue to work both norms in this area which is relatively new although some of the activity that takes place i think clearly violates already

established international norms but secondly to make sure we develop the partnerships and capability the same way we do with traditional terrorist threat, for instance, with our partner nation states so that means getting prosecutors, getting f.b.i. agents, getting experts from the department of homeland security, out to meet, train, familiarize themselves with their counterparts. it's a fundamental international threat and even when you're threat actors in one place that the tools that they're using to launch the attack may come from another country's infrastructure. so just like here in the united states, we need to work with places like universities who have a lot of bandwidth and server space so they're a tempting target for criminal groups or bad actors who want to use that space not necessarily to steal something from the university but to launch attacks against others. we need to have that same concern with other countries work with them so we can take action when others are trying to maliciously use their infrastructure. we're seeing this approach. the botnet case involved coordinated action by public

and private sector partners throughout the world. 30, 40 different companies and countries taking simultaneous action to disrupt these threats. that's got to be the model moving forward. >> thank you. if you have a question, raise your hand, wait for the mic and identify yourself. thank you. >> hi, i'm just interested, in relation to the terrorist propaganda we see in social media or websites, are the internet service providers and social media companies taking those down and deleting them? or would the security agencies and law enforcement agencies here in the u.s. like to see them do that more, remove some of those inciteful postings or inciting postings? >> i think there was a call

from the attorney general to paris after the attacks there, we met with the interior ministers of many of our partner nations and from that meeting there was a call that was echoed again when 60 countries were in town last week. and we need to find a way where we can work with internet service providers to obtain the information that law enforcement intelligence services need to prevent terrorist attacks before they occur and at the same time we need to do that in a way that's protective of the civil rights and civil liberties of the many users who are using these systems for innocent purposes and i think that's a balance that we can obtain and it's something that there's great interest not just in the united states but with partner

countries across the world to make sure we find that proper balance. the other thing we need to do which is not my expertise as someone who focuses more on finding who did it and holding them accountable but it's to figure out the best way to counter message so when you're competing for those who are getting propagandized by these very targeted social media campaigns, how do you reach that audience in a way to explain where if it's a war of ideas, we ought to be able to win, why an ideology based on enslaving other individuals, killing children and innocent civilians and is fundamentally nihilistic is one that you shouldn't join.

so that's where we also need the creativity of those who are experts in this space in the private sector, married up particularly with our partner countries in the middle east on making sure both that you have that message and that you figure out a way to reach those most at risk of being targeted for propaganda and recruitment. >> another question? over here? this gentleman. can you wait for the mic? >> hi. i'm with the american bar association. john, thank you for your service. it's been wonderful for you to be involved with the government. my question as you know is that there's a lot of legislation on the hill and from the private sector perspective, the issue for sharing information to help the government concerns immunity issues so i'd like to hear your perspective on what you think may happen and how far the immunity issue can be pushed vis-a-vis the private sector and sharing information

for you guys? >> thanks for that question, harvey. legislation in this area is needed. we know that we need the information, the private sector needs to be able to share information effectively with each other and they need to be able to share information effectively with the government when it comes to cybersecurity threat information and like wise the government needs to have a method of giving, for instance, you find a bad signature, an identification for a piece of malicious code, we need to have mechanisms where we can push that out so private companies can harden their infrastructure and protect against those who would use that bad signature to attack their systems and that's why the president has called upon congress and introduced legislation that would provide immunity from being sued. for instance, private companies

know clearly what the type of information that's they can share to the government and know that when they do they that can do so legally. in the absence of legislation, we've tried at the department of justice, talking to private sector partners, we've issued guidance saying meeting together in a sector to talk about cybersecurity issues and share signatures is not going to be a violation of the antitrust law. we've tried to issue clarifying, again, based on questions that we heard when i was doing outreach with general counsel, that the electronic outreach privacy act is not a bar from sharing information in certain instances in this space and the president recently issued a new executive order on information sharing to try to set up these industry specific groups that could share the information. but what i've heard again and again from general counsels in doing outreaches is that to reach the optimum level where they feel they can share in the space, we need legislation so i

very much hope and i know members of both parties have been very engaged and active on this issue and i hope we'll see legislation in the coming year. >> this lady in front? >> i have a question -- >> can you wait for the mic? >> sorry. >> thanks. >> hello. i have a question that was sent in on twitter for the two of you. the question is from casper bowden and it says, on february 5, privacy authorities demanded the united states stop fault collection of european data, will you? it's twitter. >> i look forward to hearing peter's answer. >> i think it's -- peter has the power to press you for an answer to that question. >> so i think the united states

alone really at this point, among nations throughout the world, has had a president who's announced what we'll do and what we won't do in terms of our intelligence collection. i think you'll find every major country in the world, western and otherwise, has an intelligence service and that intelligence services are recognized under international law and what the president has said is it's not a question -- we need to make sure it's not a question of what we can do but what we ought to be doing with those technical expertise and authorities so he's put self constraints on what the intelligence community can do in this space and you also see in the american system, a unique system of oversight, as well, that dates back to the original passage of the foreign intelligence surveillance act where it's not just the executive branch but that you have the involvement of the court system. these are the same judges i appeared before as a prosecutor, who are doing, in addition to their regular duties, sit on the foreign intelligence surveillance court. and we set up a unique

structure in terms of having the intelligence communities of the hill -- and it was in response to abuses that this was structurally set up and rightly so -- where they regularly need to be briefed on every significant intelligence activity and what you've seen with the advent of new technology and the way these are being applied and the threat, a national debate as to whether the involvement of the intelligence community are sufficient or whether we should change that structure and you've had different versions but the house, the senate and the president all endorse different statutory proposals to change the current structure but i would make -- since that sounds like a question that's

perhaps from someone overseas, the point that there isn't another country in the world, i think, that has as robust and transparent approach to the collection of intelligence but i guarantee you that they are collecting intelligence so although we should continue to hold ourselves to the highest standards and make sure we reach the right balance that we're comfortable with here, i also look forward to seeing what approaches that other countries, including european partners, apply to reach that same type of balance. >> it seems like you asked the obama administration realized the collection of meta data for several years by the government was sort of an overreach. >> i'm not sure. i think you've heard the president say -- what we're talking about here is the potential for abuse on the one hand. potential for abuse on the one hand. but they haven't said they found actual abuse which i think is an important report and a very different place than where we stood, say, after the church report, where we found information being used for improper purposes. here there was a potential of abuse because of the amount of information that you're collecting and on the other

hand you're balancing that against the potential to prevent terrorist attacks. looking at that balance, i think what you find is that there's another way to achieve that goal, which is what they've called for in the legislation. there are important national security implications for that type of information. there's another way to get it that doesn't involve, in that instance, the government holding the data so it decreases the potential for abuse and that's the change that's been called for in part and the president has said this overtly because law enforcement, intel agencies, they're working for you and they need the trust and confidence ultimately of the american people to do their jobs so if that can increase the trust and confidence, we should do it. >> one more question, the lady over here. >> hi, my name is jessica dear

from social media exchange a lebanese n.g.o. and we do a lot of research on digital rights in the arab region. thanks for being here. i'm particularly interested in this partnerships with countries in the middle east. and i'm concerned about these partnerships because i see in the middle east there's so much lack of respect for freedom of expression online in particular and that these partnerships could actually -- basically what i want to ask, what are

you going to do as the justice department when you're partnering with these countries and there was an initiative announced last week at the extremist summit about working with messaging on social media but what are you going to do to make sure we're not drawn closer to their idea of what should be free expression online versus asserting what is our first amendment right for freedom of expression online. to draw those balances in our system, here's the protections that we were able to provide, here are the limitations in terms of the protection of the first amendment speech and

we're trying to draw up best practices with partners that would enshrine those rights in law and it will obviously be an ongoing conversation. >> i want to thank assistant attorney general john carlin who has one of the most responsible jobs in the american government for taking time out of his busy day to speak with us today. [applause] >> coming up on c-span, two panels on the winter meeting. then gina mccarthy talking about emple p. -- e.p.a. and water challenges. walter jones discusses new militaryization force. then sheila jackson lee looks

at immigration issues and the current gridlock over security spending. after that blake ellie and melanie hickop. you can join us with your comments on facebook and twitter. secretary of state john kerry testifies tuesday before the senate foreign relations committee. he'll be questioned on the state department's 016 budget request and challenges abroad including isis, russia and iran. that's on c-span 3. keep track of the republican led congress and follow its new members. new congress lost access on c-span c-span2, c-span radio

an c-span.org. next from the national governor's association winter meeting, a discussion on the government's committee. fox business networks maria bartiromo moderates the 90-minute event. >> all right, folks, if i had a gavel, i would gavel us off. order. governor barber -- all right -- governor barber, if you would like to sit with the governors i'm sure you'd be welcome. let's get the session started. again, thanks for all of you

making the time to be here and joining us for this discussion of where is this economy headed. and i think obviously -- i don't know a single governor who doesn't have jobs on their committee at very top of their priority list today. we discussed the chair initiative. and we talked about states operating more effectively but also looking at culture of hospitality as danny myer talked about it. and looking at how we make our states more successful and i think part of that is better partner with business. that initiative delivering results is in a large part about economic invasion how we can effectively apply management tools from the private sector to the ro private government. we get dramatically improved

benefits. we're going to stick around to talk about economic invasion. one way or another we'll be coming back to the entire weekend. >> we are very grateful that you can create the time come down here for the second annual economic round table. maria's an award-winning journalist. she's an author, news anchor, certainly has been on a number of different networks and from different perspectives but i think she is the leading journalist today in this country. so again, we're honored that you would take the time and those of you who weren't here last year maria's going to work with us and create a lively discussion from all perspectives. she's had 25 years of experience originally with

cnbc. she was for much of that time the face of cnbc. she launched the network's morning program squawk box. last year she's doing fox business network as the global markets editor. she's anchor of the opening bell. she hosts on fox news channel. she has received two emmys to the first female journalist inducketted in the cable hall of 20 1 and was the first journalist to report daily from the floor of the stock exchange. he's the awe -- she's the author of several books. so please help me give maria a warm welcome. [applause]

>> thank you so much. it is wonderful to be with all of you today. thank you for joining us. i am thrilled to be here at this particular time for the economy, and to get perspective from all of you about what you're seeing as far as moving the needle on the economy. it feels like we have emerged from the great recession of 2007 very successfully. now we face a new set of challenges, things like a 50% selloff in the price of oil, which one would expect to be a positive. although we have only seen negative so far come out of this drop-off in oil, including cuts in jobs and spending. as well as the strong dollar as well as a brush stroke attitude when it comes to a number of initiatives you all are working on.

let's talk about where is the growth in the economy and what has worked so far. i am hoping that all of you will be interactive with your colleagues to get this conversation going. i would like to begin with you given that you have seen a big drop-off in unemployment in your state, can you give us a sense of what you have seen in terms of what has worked in that regard? >> thank you. we are honored to have you here with us. in my tenure as governor, the primary focus was to turn the economy around. my number one goal was to get a healthy economy and get out of the great recession. when i came, it was an 8.7% unemployment rate. today, it is 3.5%. we have had a dramatic turnaround. we tried to create an environment that is conducive to the entrepreneur and private sector and risk takers. we have cut our taxes and had regulation reform. we have our great educated labor force and we have efficiency in

government that doesn't get in the way of the entrepreneur. we set a goal to be the best performing economy in america. that's a high challenge and a high goal. we also wanted to improve our opportunities internationally and be a premier destination place for international trade and commerce. the results have been pretty remarkable. many publications have named us as one of the best places in america to do business. >> were there other things done in particular to get the business section hiring and creating jobs? what are the specifics that you can name? >> the motivation for most businesses is to make a profit and increase market share. creating an environment of competitive tax rates was part of it. we also did a significant review of our regulations.

as i get around my state, around the country, the most common complaint is the regulations that get in the way of their being productive in business efforts. we did a regulation reform where counted our business regulations. we had about 2000 there were impacting business. in getting input from the public and others out there, we found three have succeeded of those 2000 had no public purpose. they were simply a drag on the economy. we did what any sensible person would do eliminate or modify those. and we want you to be successful. we are going to eliminate those barriers. we are known as a business friendly state because of that. >> and yet throughout the country the themes are real in terms of persistent unemployment

elsewhere and income disparity we are seeing across the country. governor, you also have to be very focused on trying to move the needle on this. what challenges are getting in the way? >> i think there are a number of challenges. many of them reside within washington. the reality of the great recession was it did lasting systemic damage to our economy. i think in some sense it has changed how we lived. the fact it has been the most prolonged and slowest recovery in any post-world war ii recession is not lost on anyone. although clearly there are states that have benefited during that period of time, in many cases because of the production or the harvesting of natural gas or oil. what we needed to do in connecticut was change how we do

business as well. we eliminated 1,000 pages of regulation. not simply as a sign to the business community that we meant business, but we needed to change how we do business. we created a series of tools not the least of which was the small business express program. the on the state of connecticut got the business of supporting small businesses with grants matching grants, and loans designed for small businesses. in 2011 and 2012, that was a literally a lifeline to get through what was the remainder of the great recession in our state because it went 16 months longer in connecticut than it did in a national basis. so small firms that we saved and assisted are now driving job creation in connecticut. to put it another way, if we had failed to support them in their darkest moments, the jobs that are being re-created in our state would not be there. we have concentrated on things

like trying to match our educational system, particularly tying education to the needs of the state. we have been retiring engineers faster than our state and public universities have been graduating them. we recently decided to increase the engineering school at the university of connecticut by 70%. the first two classes towards that effort are 50% larger than predecessor classes. it is the sort of thing you need to do in higher education. we're also using our community colleges. a lot of governors around the table try to match the needs of the business community tighter to the courses and certification that are available in the

community colleges at the same time as we try to improve our pre-k through educational system. i think this is all hands on deck. i love spending time with other governors and stealing their ideas and telling people they were mine. [laughter] >> it is important to be able to hear what colleagues are doing to be able to match the success there. you mentioned at the start of your talk many of the challenges are because of washington. does everybody on the panel agree with that? who agrees with that? is that the inability to come together when you say washington? >> i think there are a series of issues that washington fails to make substantial progress on. actually, the governors have been talking about our transportation needs and how do we project transportation spending when both our state transportation dollars and federal dollars are closely tied to a tax that is disappearing, which is a gas tax. what are we going to do about that? what is the clear course to take to replace a reliance?

tesla is building the world's largest battery factory in nevada. and probably one of the number one brand names in the universe, apple, is apparently toying with the idea of getting into the car business. i assume they are not going to be making cars that are run by gasoline. and yet we are going to be overly independent. on immigration and education issues, there is an inability to respond to our needs in washington. even the progress that they are sometimes able to make takes too long to produce as a product. >> this is an important point, because the truth is what happens on immigration may very well be seen differently in arizona as it may be seen in

colorado. there really isn't a brushstroke attitude or way to move the needle on these issues if in fact the mentalities and geographies are so different. let's talk a little bit more about that. who raised their hands when i said the challenges in washington -- governor mcauliffe? >> it is a challenge and opportunity for virginia. we have unique circumstances. virginia is the number one recipient of the department of defense dollars. we have the largest naval base in the world. the pentagon, the cia, quantico. so when you have government dysfunction around sequestration, that impacts a place like virginia, and the whole washington area is dramatically impacted. we have got to become less reliant on government and bring in new businesses from around the globe, which is what we

really focused on. it has given us the opportunity to build the new virginia economy. i just announced that we have had the lowest unemployment in seven years. we did about $5.6 billion in direct investment last year. i did it by traveling the globe, bringing in international businesses to the commonwealth of virginia. we brought the largest chinese company to invest in america. we are trying to do it on a global basis. it has presented us with an opportunity. you have to become less reliant on the federal government. cyber security, biotech, that is the future. it's also a great opportunity. we do all wish the federal government would get their act together. the issues on sequestration of october 1, if that happens -- remember, if congress does not vote for it, they have to vote to stop it -- it will have an impact on many economies and states around the country. primarily the biggest hit will be virginia and maryland.

i'm just hoping they can figure this out. it is really devastating to a family to lose that family paycheck. >> you make a great point, particularly about attracting foreign capital. we all know that today the u.s. is the best game in town. you have real struggles elsewhere that are deteriorating. the ecb is trying to help. it is much more than monetary policy. asia is much slower than a few years ago. china is having come down from the highs in terms of economic growth. an enormous amount of money is coming to the u.s., which is creating another issue for the strong dollar and multinationals in terms of manufacturing, because that is one of the places for jobs. what else can be done in terms

of communicating and moving the needle on the federal government, understanding to get congress and the president to understand that these issues affect real people? thoughts? >> we are specialists at blaming washington. that obviously fills up a weekend and beyond. the quagmire is reflective of the quagmire we are in in this country. we talk about recovery that is slower than before. it is a situation as usual where the united states once again rules the world economically. we're not. i'm from minnesota. the economic confidence index was published last week. minnesota ranks highest of any state in the nation. we are at zero. they think that this year the economy of the united states will be no better than before. every other state is a minus. every other state, the citizens are less confident about their future and the future of this country economically than they were a year ago.

yet, objective conditions have improved. they're saying, washington doesn't know the answer. what is the answer? raise taxes, cut spending. the economy is growing. the deficit is less than it used to be. but we are not making the capital investment. we are not investing in transportation or infrastructure, the things we know need to be done. the resources aren't there. so we are caught in this trap where we can't name it, let's name this quagmire we are stuck in. our people are telling us they don't have confidence for the future. what are we going to do about it? >> do you feel you have the space and time to actually have these conversations? do you think you can communicate this better to congress and the president? are you not getting the availability? this seems so obvious that the

states should have more access as well as ownership of their economic policies. >> i can't not respond to that. absolutely we should. 52% of our land is controlled by the federal government in alaska. there are restrictions on the mining, oil and gas development. they have taken on another 20 million acres off. of the nine states combined they are turning this into one great big park and we are having a tough time with an economy that we are not allowed to develop. plenty of resources, plenty of people who want to develop. but they are making it more difficult every single year. our revenue sharing percentage is zero. other states get 37.5%, we get zero. not a good time to talk about the role of the federal government in our state. that's one of the reasons i'm here, to carry the message that

they are literally putting us out of business. >> this is a regulation issue that we will be delving into. >> i think it is easy for us to blame washington. there is plenty of frustration around the table. on the one hand we live in a world with 3 billion people looking for jobs and there are 1.2 billion jobs available. we are clearly in this unbelievable global war for jobs, which means we are in a global war for talent, because the jobs are going to go where the talent is. at the same time there are millions of jobs in this country that are open because employers can't find people with the relevant skills. to me, i like to focus on the things i can actually control. it is that latter issue. we have a couple of financial services employers in delaware. delaware is a small state, but between them, we may have about 1000 vacancies, primarily in the technology area. what we have been focused on and picking up on something governor malloy has talked about, is making sure that our institutions of higher education

and our k-12 system is at the table with our employers understanding at a pretty granular level the kind of skills they are looking for, whether it is the launching of pathways to prosperity program where we are focused on making sure that kids in school are developing the necessary skills, or listening to our employers in the i.t. industry, who keep telling us their recruitment strategy is to hire employees away from each other, which is a lousy recruitment strategy. it is so much better for everybody, employers and those looking for better employment. we are working with them to accelerate the pace at which we can train people in computer programming and other i.t. skills. it is not all about a four-year degree or a two-year degree. there are plenty of people that we can train in intensive shorter training programs that

will develop the skills they need to get a good job. when we think about the role we can play in addition to the regulatory reform efforts, making sure we have affordable cost of doing business, the quality of our schools, the quality of our infrastructure, the thing i keep hearing about from employers has to do with access to this skilled workforce. >> i think it is a great point and i want to talk about it a lot more. we hit on regulation a bit. when i speak with ceos and managers of business, i keep hearing about this revolution going on in terms of a marriage of technology and health care and this revolution in life sciences, and this and need for engineering skills and this need for science know-how. governor hickenlooper, you have seen this in terms of emerging entrepreneurs. are we keeping up from an education standpoint to ensure that our children are actually armed with the best resources

they can have to get the jobs that are available? >> certainly colorado is an example of how it is working. i think this recruitment strategy we see all the time -- we are the number one destination for millennial's. the last six years, young people 18 to 34-year-olds have been flocking into colorado, a rich talented environment. and yet within our own education system, we are not delivering the kids that are sufficiently educated. it's not degrees, but skills. it doesn't need to be a certificate. just as the governor said, we have any number of technology jobs, especially these life science jobs. these technology companies are connected to health care. they are exploding and we are

having to import a lot of the talent going to these companies. if we don't find a way to transform how we are preparing kids to go from -- it shouldn't be just from universities. how to get more apprentice programs. how do we get more community colleges involved? how do we make sure kids coming out of college don't have a bunch of debt and are ready for their jobs? our strategy will be just stealing from each other rather than generating our own. >> is that a private-sector job or a government job, the idea that we need to train our children better? >> when i talk to most of the ceos of our larger employers, we have a number of large companies that have headquarters there. they look at it as a collaborative problem. they don't buy into that we are just going to turn over to government and let them do it. most of them are funding scholarships and programs have actually helped create community

college programs that deliver specifically the type of skills and training where you can guarantee a kid, you finished this nine months worth of work and you will have a job. 98%. at the same time, they cannot do it by themselves. we have the infrastructure in the process. the hard part is to make sure we are connecting business and all of our different facilities of education in real time. what happens to often is we plan out a curriculum. by the time the curriculum gets designed and it's in place, a group comes out 12 months later and the job has already changed. it's got to be much, much faster. >> governor? >> i think the effort is right on target. only one out of 10 high schools in america offer computer science. in the u.k., it's mandated. in china, it's mandated.

it is technology education. we have a joint responsibility to prepare the students for those skills and workplace. obvously, the private sector comes in and supplements that. that is the opportunity bringing technology jobs to your state. in arkansas, we will pass a law that requires computer science or computer coding to be taught in every high school in arkansas. that will start the next school year. that is an opportunity to change the dynamics of the economy, provide technology education job opportunities to young people, and to bring those jobs back to america. >> across universities, one of the hottest classes right now is coding and learning coding and skills around engineering. governor bullock? >> in montana, we are creating jobs among the fastest pace in

our history, about 12,000 created last year, growth in every single sector, and at the same time the highest graduation rates we have seen, double the number of students taking college classes in the high schools to get that jump. >> why do you think that is? why such vibrancy? >> in part it is post recession, and places like ours weren't hit as hard. it is the opportunity that we are creating the right climate and there are opportunities in all kinds of different sectors. i spoke to elon musk and said, if you were governor, what would you do? he said: i would go out and encourage all of your people to have more babies. his point was you have over one million people. you are going to have some

challenges. i think it is a collaborative effort. you go to your private sector, other companies coming in and saying i need to be able to provide you a pipeline of trained and talented workers. you work with state government in your two- and four-year colleges and universities. sometimes it is a credential to actually skill folks up. i think it has to be a deliberative effort with the private sector in combination with the public sector and our educational system to make sure we are meeting the workforces and the employer's needs and all of our states. >> which underlines the idea that this needs to be collaborative. this needs to be a partnership between business and policymakers in terms of recognizing the issues and making sure we have the training around that. >> it is about collaboration between the private sector and the public sector.

the public sector doesn't create jobs, the private sector creates jobs. what most families want is that they feel like they have to work harder and harder every day to be able to achieve financial independence. we also have the situation in oklahoma where you have a really low unemployment rate. it's about 4.4% right now. you have employers who cannot find the workers they need. and then you have a really low unemployment rate. the real challenge is the skills gap, and making sure you have the right level of attainment in your states, even regional and localized within the local communities, the local regions of your individual state. we have formed a partnership with many different organizations. one in particular is we have been realigning our k-12 education with our career technology schools and our higher education institutions for associate degrees or bachelor's degrees, and then

working with the private sector to say, what do you need? i know down in eastern oklahoma the skill sets they need may be in for street, tourism manufacturing, but throughout western oklahoma, it is agriculture. it is oil and gas, wind turbines. they have a lot of engineering and aerospace, a lot of financial services. so you have a similar skills gap. so one of the things we talked about last year was how do you meet the skills gap? get that right type of educational attainment level to be able to take care of the jobs and help people have a career path? we also know that two thirds of the jobs will require more than a high school degree. you are going to have to have an associates or college degree to be successful and reach the middle class.

it is one of our biggest challenges: how do we make sure we have the skilled educated workforce that is relevant to today's ever-changing modern economy? >> the issue is so important. it almost seems like a luxury to be discussing it during a time that there is a whole portion of people in america right now who really have not seen the impact of the recovery. you heard what vice president biden said the other day. you see it in the polls. even though we see all of the economic data that seems to beginning better every month you have poll after poll where people say i'm not feeling it. i don't necessarily think things are getting better. i think we're still in a recession. why do you think that is? talk about the challenges that you have seen. >> i have been in this job for about four weeks. [laughter] i have all the answers. that's right. i can tell you what i saw from the private sector. the reason i am a democrat is

because i recognize we need to have a balance as he talked about. there are four things. states aren't example of the macroeconomic trends. there are three things that i think the state needs to do, pennsylvania especially. we need to set the table for economic growth. it is the private sector that does that, but it takes a robust public sector to make sure the private sector can function. the private sector -- we need regulations. the private sector cannot set the rules of the game that makes it so the market performs optimally. government has to do those things. i think some of the things can be done in the private sector, but a lot of those things have have to be done publicly. we need to take advantage of the

competitive advantages where we have a god-given location. we have two great cities. we have the greatest universities of higher education in the world. some of the greatest. >> just say it again. >> you jump in. >> we have some of the greatest attributes. government is uniquely qualified to do that. government works at the margins. some of the things we can do to make sure that we are having an education system that has relevant skills, we have to have a well-funded education system. it has to be accountable and it has to provide the skills that private sector and families need. i think we do have a situation where families are looking somewhat pessimistically at the future, even though unemployment in pennsylvania is down 5%. the workforce percentage is not that good. people are flocking away from the workplace, maybe because of a skills mismatch. people aren't staying in

pennsylvania. we have our work cut out for us. i think i can, as governor, try to address the specific issues. one of the things i have to do is make people feel good about what their future holds and what the opportunities are. i think they need to be optimistic. i think government can play a big role in unleashing those animal spirits. >> in this session, we want to talk about, where are the jobs where is the growth, where are the main issues that are getting in the way of those two things? i would like to get the insights of a few more of you who are new new to your roles. some of you won the people's vote because you are a business person and because people believe a business person can try to apply business principles

to a policy framework. governor ducey, i would put you in that category. tell us what you see so far. >> i did run as a business person. i come from the private sector. my company was cold stone creamery. you get a lot of undeserved popularity selling ice cream. we translated that into a campaign. [laughter] i think most people understand a small business. i think when you talk about this -- those principles of what makes a small business work are the same principles you can apply to government, a budget that you are accountable to, a plan that you follow, good communication with your franchisees, the investment in people in terms of what happens inside the store and customer service. i never said that government is a business.

i think that is a dangerous way to look at it. i think business, like principles, leadership setting out a vision, a mission of how you are going to accomplish it to demonstrate through the people that you pick on your senior staff and agency heads, and put metrics out there that people can actually see that if you are driving towards those numbers it will affect their quality of life. expansion of the economy, per capita income, lower crime rates. those are the pragmatic way to give common sense numbers that are not partisan. they are things that say that this community is going to be better tomorrow than it is today because we are working on these issues. >> what you are talking about is accountability. when the people know there is accountability in place oftentimes you do see a different performance. >> i think a lot of jobs of the future are in science, engineering, and math. they are also better paying

jobs. i signed an executive order in september of 2011 to really put together a public-private partnership that involves business, education at all levels, and government. we have gone from 40,000 kids involved in stem to 80,000 to 117,000. a lot of enthusiasm and a lot of interest. there are kids who never thought they might have an aptitude in math and science who are now seeing a real opportunity there. another thing we have done is because of the skill shortage that we hear from business, and we know there is a big reduction in the military, we started something called homebase iowa

we are actively working to recruit people coming out of the military for the careers and jobs we have available right now. in just seven months we have placed almost 1000 people coming out of the military in good jobs in iowa. those are a couple of things to prepare for the jobs of the future with the stem program long-term, and the home base iowa in short term. >> you are all walking a balance of trying to create jobs, trying to figure out where it will come out from. maybe it is the stem area. maybe it is manufacturing. at the same time faced with issues around immigration, around the cost of health care. of course, education. let's dig deeper into what can be done. for example, in terms of immigration, in terms of the idea that the funding for homeland security may not come through, is there anything they could be done on your level that

actually can move the needle to give business economics some clarity? no comment? what is the biggest issue? i would like to go around the horn and see what the biggest economic issue you faced right now. governor? >> in terms of the state of hawaii, it really is about connecting the dots between the job opportunities and the graduates graduating. like most other states, we do have jobs go unfilled. the students and the graduates don't really have the right job skills. >> you're saying that skill sets is your number one issue in hawaii? >> yes, in terms of getting to the next level. the economy is doing much better than it was four years ago. the challenge is the confidence

issue, that the general population don't feel certain about what the future holds. the concern is about being able to get a good middle-class job that will allow them to be able to earn and create a career, most importantly, being able to live and work in hawaii. >> biggest issue in arizona? >> i talked about jobs in the economy every day. that, in addition to k-12 education, are the biggest concerns and the biggest things a governor can affect from that office. arizona is a state built on growth. it is a place where people have been moving from around the country. that slowed dramatically. our unemployment is a point higher than the national unemployment. getting that economy turned around is what were going to do in this administration. >> oklahoma? >> it is jobs and the economy.

and my big goal this year is start to work at structurally changing how we do our state budget in oklahoma. we can fund things that are priority in oklahoma and not some things we just hope works. effectiveness, efficiency, and accountability. we ask every set agency to set goals, measurable goals with specific percentages they hope to achieve. for example we want to reduce our smoking rates in oklahoma. we set a goal to reduce our smoking rates by 2025 by a certain percentage. we wanted high school seniors to go on to get a college degree. maybe it is improving our recidivism rate, helping people coming out of prison. and then tying our budget to those goals.

and if we are not reaching the goals, then change the programming to make the government more accountable, effective, and efficient. >> i agree with the question of the talent and the training. i would add to that and one issue we have not touched on is is infrastructure and energy. energy is tied to the cost of everything we do. we need to have a sound energy policy. we need an energy strategy that is long-term, that finds the appropriate balance for the environment and the development of the energy. we had been a very wealthy state. we can do some remarkable things. one thing we have to try to work on is infrastructure. it is the basic building block of economic development.

i think that is not just an issue of state-by-state. we rely on commerce to flow between the states. i think that is a challenge. how do we have great infrastructure? how to have an energy strategy that provides affordable energy and the cleanest way possible to the country? those are two big issues from wyoming's perspective. >> i want to get into energy. i think the question now is, is the need for the energy policy you are talking about as urgent as it was with a 50% decline? >> i think this is the exact right time to be looking at it. if you wait until oil is up to $100 and you say it is not a

problem now, you are completely misunderstanding the concept of affordable energy. we can't just have it six months by six months. it has to be a long-term strategy. this is the time to look at it. what should the portfolio be? not only including how we use energy in this country, but what it is you export and how we make it the best possible? we tend to be reactive as a country, as states. we go disaster by the day. some of these take long-term strategy not only for the states but for the predictability of industry, and of chemical companies. what are the energy costs going to be not next year but for 30 years? i think to the extent we can provide that it helps the state, it provides predictability for industry which is critical for investment. >> one of the reasons that oil prices have come down so much is

because of the supply. >> it is a supply and demand. it is a little bit artificial. it is supply and demand partly by angry opec. the innovation of technology of our companies that have been able to find resources that 10 years ago we thought we could never attain. >> biggest economic issue facing nevada? >> investing in k-12 education. improving the delivery of education in our state. nevada is on the move. we have added 100,000 new jobs in the past four years. we have reduced the unemployment rate. we were at 14% four years ago. we have kicked it down to 6.8%. we have a long way to go. we have new companies, technology companies. governor malloy talked about the tesla battery plant coming to our state. that is going to -- the state demographer had to change the

predictions for our state because there will be close to 7000 direct jobs and 20,000 other jobs coming here. as matt said, i don't want to be reactive. i have to get in front of this and make sure we have this trained workforce all of us have been talking about. one of the things we did is we have developed sector councils that brought together the private sector, the universities, k-12, so that we can build those curriculums so that workforce will be ready to go when those businesses open up. that is for me preparing for the future, preparing for the new nevada. nevada has historically been based on gaming and tourism, but now we have the largest data center in nevada, the largest battery manufacturer. we are only one of six states that have attracted as a testing area for drones. that is another big emerging area in aviation that i have to be ready for.

that is my priority. >> and you are dealing with foreign money coming in from places like china. >> yes. we are seeing investment in that regard. i have learned from the other governors you can't wait for it. you have to go out and get it. we have been on trade missions to china, korea, israel, canada, mexico. we will be going to others this fall, some other places as well, because there are companies -- foreign companies looking to expand their market in the u.s. when they come to the u.s. i want them to come to nevada. this is a great competition amongst all of us to have the most business-friendly states we can have. we want to have a stable tax structure as well. the question i get asked is about education. that is why my focus is on that.

>> many of you have been successful in terms of creating an environment for business to headquarter there or create jobs. governor nixon? >> just a follow-up. we are focused on making sure that we are transforming our economy for a world economy, making sure you are delivering reforms that make a real difference. >> the biggest economic issue you face? >> making sure we have people who have the skills for the future. you can see these trends coming. this stuff doesn't sneak up on you. as we look at our plan, it is clear that we need to match what those jobs of the future are with education system that delivers them, especially with the high cost. we've also kept the cost of education down, the lowest tuition increase of anywhere in the country, expand our scholarship program at our community colleges. that workforce side, and improving the education side as to what you need for that, and

keep fiscal discipline, which helps us get foreign investment. >> governor. >> similar. the disconnect between the skills needed in the schools available, the effort we have made is to launch two years free community college or technical school to every high school graduate. we had 90% of high school seniors apply for the program. that two years free has gotten everybody's attention and hopefully we can address the gap. >> i would not disagree with anybody. workforce development. in virginia in the next 10 years, one million virginians will retire and create 500,000 new jobs. we need 1 million and a half folks to fill those jobs. i have 30,000 jobs open in northern virginia in the tech space. cyber security. i'm trying to encourage education system to make sure

when those kids come into kindergarten they have a crayola book with stem on the cover and a chapter on cyber security. listen, it is a global economy. preparing for that. we are blessed with natural gas. for the first time you are seeing 58% of ceos say they are going to insource because of the natural gas costs. we can be competitive with anybody now in manufacturing. bringing back advanced manufacturing to america's a great success. we just announced the other day i brought a chinese company back, a highly distressed area in virginia, the biggest deal in 44 years. they invested the money, reopened an old furniture plant, taking the product to our port and shipping it back to china. it was cheaper to do it here. we took their money, opened the plant, and sell them back the product made in virginia. that is what you have to do.

>> what about the idea that companies have so much money overseas? what's your change in tax policy to open up that in terms of getting that money -- i was just talking to the qualcomm ceo. they have $31 billion in cash. $28 billion is overseas. >> talk to john chambers at cisco. he would love to bring it back. he has a fiduciary responsibility to shareholders to maximize returns. we have to make our tax policy so that it incentivizes. they have a fiduciary duty to make it smart for their shareholders to bring that money back here and turbocharge our economy. i think all of us would agree you need to change the tax code. >> by the way, even though they have this money, they would

rather borrow more money on r&d because rates are so low. it makes perfect sense. why would you bring the money back from europe or from wherever if you're going to get double taxed on it rather than just borrowing it at 0%? governor baker? biggest issue you face in massachusetts? >> snow. [laughter] >> fair enough. and you're going to get more of it. does that have an economic story to it? >> absolutely. the economic story has many parts. the big ones are for retailers and hospitality businesses, main street businesses. it has been a grim month. many businesses are not hand to mouth, but a lot of them have the kinds of places that if they do not bring customers in and buy things, no one gets paid. the consequence of 8.5 feet of snow and the number of days lost

for those operations has been profound. i think the second big issue is it puts an enormous strain on public resources, because nobody budgets for nine feet of snow. you have all kinds of local communities that we have been working hard with to try and set up mutual aid programs to help them deal with the plowing removal and disposal of this. we stopped counting how much snow we were moving once we got above 100 times filling gillette stadium. we have had folks like governor wolf who sent in the national guard and equipment from states like vermont and maine. and the irony of having vermont and maine send us national guard people and heavy equipment to help remove snow is ironic. new york, new jersey. it is -- the public expense associated is significant. the third big issue which we will start dealing with over the

next few days is going to be property damage as roofs start to collapse. is this apocalyptic for you? i think that once we get past the snow, probably for us, i would basically put it in a slightly different way. we have one of the most successful and most vibrant and most forward-looking knowledge-based economies anywhere in the world. if you're in one of those spaces and you can play in it and play successfully, the world is your oyster. if you're not, it is a cold place in massachusetts these days. one of our challenges not just in massachusetts but elsewhere -- and it gets back to your question: why did the numbers look so good? to so many people it is an anxious time for the better part of 4-5 years.

they are running fast and working hard. they're having a hard time seeing where progress is going to come from, primarily because of the price of food and housing, the price of energy the price of health care. that one i do believe is tied directly to education and skills. we have got to figure out a way to do a better job. >> what are you going to do at the end of the school year with all of these days out for kids? are you going to have them make that up? when you think of americans kids versus chinese kids, we are sending our kids to school at much lower volume of days. they are being educated more in china. the snow is one portion of this subject, but this is touchy because schools have been closed for so long. right? >> generally speaking, the performance of most kids in massachusetts, it is most -- which brings me to another

subject. on most national and international exams it is quite good. we can compete with pretty much anybody at the middle and upper end. our problem, and it is a problem we better fix, achievement gap which is an opportunity gap between the school systems and the school districts in the schools that are performing, and those that aren't as profound. that is something i really believe we had better focus on. because in the long run, if you don't get a great high school education and beyond, your chances in this world in this economy are going to be severely limited. >> absolutely. it just builds on each other as you get further into school. high school, college. governor wolf, the biggest economic challenge for pennsylvania?

>> i agree with education. we have to build up the infrastructure and make sure the economy can function. i think the biggest problem in pennsylvania is low self-esteem. i think one of the things the governor -- that is not a laugh line. >> you have to explain this to us. low self-esteem is your biggest economic problem. why? >> i'm not saying this is a matter of confidence. i think one of the things that a good leader does, and as governors, we have the opportunity to do this and tout our potential and make sure we are not wasting away in part because we are not as good as we are. pennsylvania is one of the underachieving states that can do better with the resources we have. one of the responsibilities of leadership is to address not only the structural issues, but also the psychological issues to keep us and hold us back. so low self-esteem is a big problem.

>> that requires leadership in terms of making sure people have optimism and hope that they can get a better life. >> especially in pennsylvania. yes. >> governor harper? >> the biggest challenge facing utah is the challenge we have had, is a growing economy. how do we keep it growing in a fast-growing state? we are one of the third or fourth fastest-growing states. the need to have economic expansion continues. i take a page out of president bill clinton's book, where he said it is the economy, stupid. it really is the number one focus of all of us. we know we cannot have long-term sustained economic growth unless we have a skilled labor force. it goes back to education and beyond high school diplomas and into post high school needs. there needs to be better alignment with what the skills we are teaching in schools, and the demands of the marketplace

are. you asked the question earlier about whose responsibility is it to make sure that young people get a good education. is it public or private? governor hickenlooper talked about the fact that it is a collaboration. part of that equation which we tiptoe around is it is the parents and guardians responsibility that their children get a good education. that is a component we overlook. we have too many parents in utah drop their children off at kindergarten, pick them up at high school graduation, and: how was it? they need to be more involved to make sure they are getting their assignments done, that they are learning in school. that is an aspect we need to talk about to make sure the parent-teacher conferences are being held and people are working together with how they will excel in the classroom. the challenge from me is to have great success.

how can i continue to make sure that happens is going to be a -- require a skilled labor force. >> our gdp has grown 4.1%, twice the national average. our population is under 2% growth. we have a high birth rate. we are a young population. i have a lot of kids in school. plus people are now moving to utah for great quality of life and economic opportunity. it is a conundrum as far as how do you accommodate that and do you accommodate that and still grow and have that expand? >> in parts of colorado and parts of the country, it is confidence. people don't believe.

it is not just their self-esteem, but a big part of job creation is entrepreneurship. entrepreneurs generally puts technology and health care aside. a lot of times a guy working in a company, this is one of the better workers there, he wants to start his own business. he thinks he can negotiate a better contract, manage his workers better. if he doesn't feel the community supports him taking that risk, if he thinks there is too much red tape, if she feels there is not enough space for her entrepreneurial activities, then they won't do it. over the last several years we have seen that. the number of startups have gone down significantly. you can tie it to a number of things: how supportive we are

of entrepreneurs. the media is constantly bombarding people with this negative impression of how this is broken or that is broken. or this person is a scoundrel. we go through these campaigns where the level of negative advertising is beyond what anyone could have imagined 20 years ago. people don't believe anymore. that is having a direct effect on our entrepreneurship. colorado is growing. we have tons of startups. we do believe. we have a funny way of infrastructure. we move rapidly and the planning that has gone on is not going to be sufficient. even if we had it we are too far behind. it is good policy to have. traffic jams, congestion, we are one of work on this together.

it is better than having empty streets. i think that sense of confidence is that this is going to be the key for the overall country. people forget governor clinton before he was president talked about the economy stupid. our recession started in 1984. i got laid off in 1996. he was running for president in 1992. that recovery had some dips. these recoveries are difficult processes. part of that is getting accelerated have people believe to get confidence. >> i agree. the media plays an important part in terms of ensuring people understand the facts and what is going on. one of the reasons that people have not been feeling it is because their wages haven't moved. you have an environment where unemployment numbers look what they are getting better but the have not been feeling it is because their wages haven't

moved. you have an environment where unemployment numbers look what average guy or gal has not seen a change in their salaries. >> absolutely. we just opened shake shack. >> hugely successful deal. >> the wait staff, the price of the menu goes up. they have gone up 250% in the last 25 years. wages have gone up a fraction. i think that pressure, you see that in every industry. >> that is true. >> the segue from that is, why is that? there are two big reasons. businesses have more choices than they have ever before about where to locate and where to expand, and where to hire. >> and who to hire. >> and who to hire. we have to come to grips with the fact that we are not entitled to a job tomorrow just than they have ever before about where to locate and where to expand, and where to hire. >> and who to hire. because the employer was in our state yesterday. this is not just a battle

amongst us as governors. the battle is with employers around the globe. that is number one. number two, there are profound implications. we carry these computers in our pockets. the positive aspects of that increases productivity, more wealth and opportunity. i'm sure we all have employers in our states who are producing twice as much as they produced 10 years ago employing half as many people. this revolution has big twice as much as they produced implications for the nature of what is the role of people in producing things. i think particularly given the fact that there are more choices than ever before, we need to understand what it is that they care most about when they are making that decision about where to invest and hire. then we have to act on it. to me, the biggest take-away of all this is what everyone has talked about. it has to do with workforce and skills. the $28 billion overseas, i think it is not just about tax